Thursday, July 1, 2010

NYANP - Naturopathy's Vitalism-UnExplicit Code of UnEthics

here, I analyze the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians [NYANP] page "Code of Ethics" [see 001., below]; and then I illustrate how naturopathy is fundamentally unethical, even on this AANP chapter's ethics page [see 002., below]:

001. NYANP states in "Code of Ethics [COE]" [vsc 2010-07-01]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health [...] following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#1] first, do no harm [...] primum non nocere [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae) [...#4] the naturopathic physician shall educate [...] doctor as teacher [...] the naturopathic physician shall acknowledge the worth and dignity of every person [...] the naturopathic physician shall act judiciously to protect the patient and the public when health care quality and safety are adversely affected by the incompetent or unethical practice by any person [...] the naturopathic physician shall [...] strive for professional excellence through assessment of personal strengths, limitations and effectiveness and by advancement of professional knowledge [...] the naturopathic physician shall conduct her/his practice and professional activities with honesty, integrity and responsibility for individual judgment and actions [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to participate in professional activities to advance the standards of care, body of knowledge and public awareness of naturopathic medicine [...] the naturopathic physician shall respect all ethical, qualified health care practitioners and cooperate with other health professions to promote health for the individual, the public and the global community [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to exemplify personal well-being, ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional."

Note: I will respond to what's in red in 002.  Note: NYANP lists their Board of Directors as:

"Donielle Wilson, ND [Bastyr] - President [...] Peter B. Bongiorno ND [Bastyr], LAc - Vice President [...] Sharon Stills, ND [SCNM] - Treasurer [...] Ed Murach, ND [Bastyr 2003] LAc - Secretary [...] Robert Woodbine, ND [NCNM...] James Prego, ND [Bastyr 2004...] Paul Mittman, ND [NCNM 1985...] Sean Heerey, ND [NCNM]."

002. analysis of 001.'s COE highlights:

002.a. regarding "self-healing power of nature [...] vis medicatrix naturae [SHPN-VMN]":

this is naturopathy's vitalistic context, coded.  Wow, this COE gets off to a really bad, unethical / opaque start!  How are patient's to be adequately informed if EVEN the COE of naturopathy doesn't transparently disclose naturopathy's essential sectarian science-ejected context and instead engages in coding?  This doesn't meet the disclosure requirements of commerce, never mind the higher transparency requirements of professionalism!  In order to be informed fully, NDs would need to tell you explicitly what SHPN-VMN means and that it is indeed science-ejected.  Here's some help, by way of the alma mater of four of the NYANP BOD members (Stills, Woodbine, Mittman and Heerey), NCNM, who hosts the page "Principles of Healing" which states:

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process."  Ah, that science-ejected premise of vitalism, transparently stated at the source of North American naturopathy.  But, I wouldn't be too relieved: NCNM, on the same page, states "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."  Yes, NCNM then states the falsehood that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny.  In fact, on that page, NCNM states that vitalism is "in fact."
 
002.b. regarding "first do no harm":
 
the context of this rather naturalistic- and reasonable- sounding principle is actually vitalistic.  Again, via NCNM and that same page, we're told clearly:
 
"first do no harm -- primum no nocere.  The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae; therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized."
 
Note: so, again, vitalism is at the CORE of naturopathy BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION.  But, you may ask, why won't NYANP tell the public that directly / themselves?  Something as simple-sounding as nonmalefeasance [!!!] / do no harm codes a sectarian, figment-centered article of faith context.
 
002.c. regarding "the naturopathic physician shall educate":
 
well, seeing as science has hugely ejected vitalism from itself for hugely mundane reasons, I wouldn't count on anything but miseducation from, as Barrett has said, 'these muddle-heads'!
 
002.d. regarding "naturopathic physician shall acknowledge the worth and dignity of every person";
 
when the alma mater / trunk of all this is so FALSEHOOD based, hmmm.  How is incompetence, science-illiteracy, and plain old irrationality going to lead to such a noble goal?  In embracing this nonsense, I don't even think NDs are acknowledging their own worth and dignity!
 
002.e. regarding "when health care quality and safety are adversely affected by the incompetent or unethical practice by any person":
 
my irony meter is off the scale!  Naturopathy is both incompetent and unethical!  It's very premise, that the science-ejected is the scientific hugely degrades health care quality and safety, because it's INSANE!
 
002.f. regarding "professional excellence [...] professional knowledge":
 
they love the professional label.  But, insanity is not excellent.  And when all kinds of knowledge are blended and mislabeled as science, then no knowledge actually exists.
 
002.g. regarding "honesty, integrity and responsibility":
 
well, this COE page is dishonest, in my view.  So, so much for that.  All of the NDs listed as NYANP BOD members do not, even on their own web practice pages, clearly communicate the science-ejected vitalistic core that is naturopathy.  There is no integrity.  None of this nontransparency fulfills the responsibilities of professionalism.
 
002.h. regarding "to advance the standards of care":
 
NDs label homeopathy a "clinical science" on their NPLEX board exam. That's like dentistry including the Tooth Fairy in their SOC.
 
002.i. regarding "knowledge and public awareness of naturopathic medicine":
 
again, the irony meter is almost busted!  NDs don't abide by the preponderant / consensus definition of what actually is within science: and that excludes vitalism, supernaturalism, and teleology.  And they don't transparently communicate 'the essentially naturopathic.'
 
002.j. regarding "ethical, qualified":
 
not.

002.k.regarding "cooperate with other health professions":


not health professionals.

002.l. regarding "ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional":

ha, ha, ha, ha.
Post a Comment